Someone wondered why you can't apply ACLs to individual registry values, only to the containing keys.
You already know enough to answer this question; you just have to put the pieces together.
In order for a kernel object to be ACL-able, you need to be able to create a handle to it, since it is the act of creating the handle that performs the access check.
Creating a handle to the value means that we would need a function like
RegOpenValue and corresponding
RegSetValueData functions which take not a registry key handle but a registry value handle.
And then you've basically come full circle. You've reinvented the 16-bit registry, where data was stored only in the tips of the trees. Just change value to subkey and you're back where you started.
What would be the point of adding an additional layer that just re-expresses what you had before, just in a more complicated way?
Commenter bcthanks wondered why we didn't abandon values and just stored everything in subkeys, like the 16-bit registry did. Well, if you want to do that, then more power to you. Though it would make it difficult for you to store anything other than
REG_SZ data in the registry. If you wrote a
REG_BINARY blob to the default value of a subkey, what should be returned if somebody called
RegQueryValue which always returns a string?